During the period from 1985 to 1996 I was
training manager for Alfred McAlpine, a Civil Engineering and Building
contractors based in Cheshire. The Arousal programme formed a key
element of our annual training programme and was run at least twice a year
from 1985 to 1993. It was an extremely popular course and, although
it was one of the most expensive that we ran as a training department (we
charged the business units the cost of the training courses), we never
had any problems getting delegates. It was run as a three day residential
course and the delegates would get so absorbed in it, there were occasions
when some teams worked until the early hours on the business simulation.
We did not attempt to measure the benefits to the businesses but the effects
were very interesting. Our Arousal programme was rather different
to the usual format. Whilst some companies used the Arousal programme
to develop the hard skills of running a construction business, our aim
was to develop the softer skills of team working, leadership and personal
effectiveness. The business skills development was a side issue. When we first started running the programme,
the company was a typical construction company. The culture was macho,
management style was confrontational and the softer skills were never thought
important. We realised, at the time, that the construction industry
would have to change and that a fundamental change of management style
was required. The Arousal programme was the managers first exposure
to the softer side of management and, in the first courses, managers learned
more about themselves than anything else. It allowed us to plant
the ideas of the importance of the softer management skills in the minds
of the managers in a way that was non threatening. It was also at
the time when PC's were just becoming widely available in offices and it
was also the managers first exposure to the power of the PC. It demonstrated
to many managers how the PC could be used and converted them to its usefulness.
This was an unexpected outcome. As part of the course, we would carry out the
Strength Deployment inventory (SDI) and the results changed over the years
we were running the course. In the early days, the managers were predominantly
in the Assertive-Directing category. This was no surprise as it was
in keeping with the prevailing culture of the industry.

As time went by, the style of the managers
changed and towards the end of the period, we were finding the managers
were predominantly analytic-autonomizing or altruistic-nurturing.
Assertive managers were rare and this was a complete change around. The benefits also changed over the period and latterly the
course was a testing ground for managers to try out skills they had learned
on other courses and to assess their further training needs. It became
a test bed for managers to learn about their strengths and weaknesses.
I don't believe we ever achieved any fundamental change in behaviour simply
as a result of attending the Arousal course and, in this respect, it was
not a traditional training course. It was short and covered a very
wide range of management skills. Its value, however, was that it
put managers into a familiar and realistic working environment where they
could try out ideas and be counselled about the results. We even
incorporated into the course an assessment questionnaire. This was
to be completed at different stages of the course when different skill
requirements were predominating. It asked the managers to consider
the skills they were using at that stage and to assess their effectiveness.
Guidance was given on how to assess the effectiveness and, at the end of
the course, the questionnaire summarised the results into a training needs
assessment. This then led into setting objectives for personal development
and further training requirements. In summary, I believe the Arousal programme was
an invaluable tool for management development. It exposed managers
to ideas they had never considered before and was all done in a familiar
and comfortable environment. The simulation was an effective tool
to make managers consider their own strengths and weaknesses and, given
guidance from the trainers, they could develop plans for improvement.

Andrew HollwayMarch 2000

Andrew Hollway is an Independent Training Consultant operating in
the UK and Overseas, predominately for Construction Firms, Governments
and constructed-related NGOs.